Jason, I do not work for the Qt Company, nor I do QtC programming. So my position is my own.
We might differ in opinions on who drives which changes & why. But I'm sure we can agree on the truth that we can cooperate in several ways to move QtC stuff as we think it should be, some of them are: code & patches, documented usability studies, proposals on formal UI/UX guidelines and even PSD/SVG/AI or animations illustrating how & why this or that should work, or how it make for a better workflow. I tried coding, but (as I reported in my first answer), QtC's lack of documentation made it harder for me last time I tried. But Im still open (any mentors?) I insist, "flat" is really hard to do right. Cheers! Ariel On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > I reject your position entirely. > 1. We do not need to conceed change for the sake of change. Change should > only happen when there is an improvement. > 2. Metro has flopped. Even MS can't move the market. It's wrong to assume > that they dictate UI, or UX culture. Culture is a societial construct. We > all participate in it, and no one of us owns it. > 3. Accepting "that's just the way it is" does nothing to improve th > situation, and I an apalled at your resignation to it. There's a great > quote "Well-behaved women seldom make history". The status quo is never an > improvement or news worthy. > 4. I'm not saying things were better. As I've stated gloss was getting out > of hand and information density was too high. But that doesn't mean that we > shouldn't have to sacrifice up buttons of the most important actions to the > design gods, and hide that functionality behind a right click. > 5. As as 35 year vetern of computer UIs, I've seen changes over time, and > it is natural for big changes to be resisted. But I don't really care about > flat, skeumorphic, gloss, material, metro, I care that the UI is > /intiutive/. The primary use cases should be obvious and easy to perform. > While the kit/build "buttons" at the top pf the Projects editor were > getting out of control, the clean up is very welcome. But the two things > that I want to do when I'm in this view are change the build/run settings > (which survives, thank goodness) or add a kit. No where is there a button > for adding a kit. There is no way to tell there is a context menu > availible. Also, having the context menu availibl e when over project > settings is bad design. Basic UX is that when I'm right clicking on > something I get a context menu for that something. But the contect menu > doesn't apply to what I'm clicking on, it applies to the whole frame. Very > simply, the context menu shuold be removed and two buttons added > under "Build & Run" which are "Import build" and "Add Kit". You added a > non-obvious required click between me and the function I want. > 6. Furthermore, you could have extended the "tree" (I still don't see a > tree) to also include the build configuration (Release, Debug) under the > Build or Run items for that kit. Why did the tree terminate where it did? > You added another 2 clicks for me. I could have just clicked on "Release" > in the tree, but now I have to click on Build, then click the drop-down > (+1) , then click again to select the one I want (+1). > > Does anyone do usability studies any more? I can't be the only one that is > appauled by this [industry wide] regression of UX. I remember when click > depth (counts) was a thing. > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 1:15 PM > *From:* "Ariel Molina" <ar...@edis.mx> > *To:* "Mike Jackson" <imikejack...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* qt-creator <email@example.com>, "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2 > Mike, > > It's romatic to look at good old times, and I understand your frustation, > but things are just that way now. You need the market force of Apple, > Google or Microsoft to set a trend (just like skeu-then-flat, paper and > metro). > > Better to adapt, there are more than one way to do things right, > > Cheer up! > > Ariel > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mike Jackson <imikejack...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> "Fashion" is the issue. Just because somebody made something fashionable >> does not mean it is correct or easy to use. The younger generation have >> never had it easier because they have only known to just tap/click >> everywhere until something happens. Let's introduce them to how things are >> supposed to work. Go against fashion and with ease of use. We can cite UI >> design rule after rule where those rules in the past were based on >> meticulous human-computer interaction research. The new generation of UI/UX >> designers seemed to have just tossed out all that research for no good >> reason. >> >> Example: Information density in icons. We now have access to "retina" >> class displays capable of displaying a LOT of information in an icon. Icon >> designers have been waiting 30 years for this to occur. And what happens? >> All the fashionable designs use an "outline" icon. Really? Those designers >> make the user work harder to attain the same information that a properly >> designed icon could store. >> >> Basic Color use: Why does everything have to be the same color? (I am >> looking at you Apple and your monochrome Finder). Some where after OS X >> 10.6.8 Apple decided that actually having nicely colored icons in the >> Finder was somehow "bad" so now every folder is the same shade of blue. >> That makes it really hard for users to distinguish between the "Downloads", >> "Home", "Pictures" or some other important folder that we pinned to the >> side of the Finder. >> >> Postbox (An Email Application) recently released a newer version. They >> used outline icons and low contrast typography all over the UI. There is >> even a point where I have a white outlined folder on a nearly white >> background. This just should NOT happen. >> >> Moral of the story. Don't be fashionable. Be correct. Be easy. Back up >> your designs with actual user research. >> >> -- >> Mike Jackson [mike.jack...@bluequartz.net] >> >> >> Ariel Molina wrote: >>> >>> Thing is that what's "easy" is hard to define, it tends to come and go >>> as fashion goes. For example, current trend (from several years now) is >>> that youngsters find "flat" easy and skeumorphic ugly simply because >>> they are used to see things like that. So the UI team have to balance >>> three things: ease for hardcore veterans, be appealing and "modern" for >>> the new wave, and being easy to use. So they try hard, and I wish them >>> the best. >> >> > > -- > Ariel Molina R. > > Oficina: +52 (222) 3723196 > Movil: +521 2226 758874 > http://edis.mx > -- Ariel Molina R. http://edis.mx
_______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qtfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator